jrgd

If you take a look at it from the lens of distro maintainers, this would be an absolute nightmare. Distros package library versions, and currently tightly control the release of applications to given library versions. Allowing just any range of library versions for applications would loosen said requirement, but would require distros to then build and maintain a ton of versions of each library.

Flathub currently curbs this problem to a large extent by bundling explicit point release packages of common libraries, and expects the application to bundle uncommon ones themselves. This does mean that one cannot simply package an application without some thought put into the library versions used for release on Flathub still.

For distros, this style of packaging could somewhat be copied, but to little benefit. It would either be wasting time replicating congruence with an existing standard like Flathub’s library bundles or do their own thing and further complicate things for developers wanting to get their app published to a distro’s repos.

Overall, flatpaks make the process look a bit more seamless than things really are for developers and package maintainers. Flatpaks really only work as well as they do because everyone mostly agrees on adhering to the library packages published by Flathub. I don’t really think adding even the sliding scale of library ‘sets’ for various distros would any benefit beyond what is currently done.

Adding to compatibility notes, it does seem that with the 2015 A1502’s there won’t be anything major in poor compatibility, beside the webcam not working out of the box. Found someone who documented their experience heavily tuning their Fedora install on their 2015 A1502. The author kitted out their Mac with a new SSD and better Wi-Fi card, which is worth mentioning. Some of the information is straight up helpful for even a standard A1502. Common stuff like installing the RPMFusion libva driver, EasyEffects equalizer presets, TLP are generally good ideas.

Mbpfan is also a good idea, but it looks like the package got dropped on 44 from a missing maintainer. May be recommended to install 43 for now if going with Fedora. I pulled the package source and built it on my computer, and it seems to work. Unfortunately I don’t have an actual Macbook to test it on. I’ll see about getting a COPR repo for it available soon, so that the package can be easily tested.

I have a Copr repo available (jrgd/mbpfan) for unofficial packages on Fedora 44.

Some stuff, like disabling mitigations, throttled, and installing the FacetimeHD drivers are not stuff I’d really recommend. You can still go with any of these noting the caveats listed for each tweak. The FacetimeHD drivers are required for getting the webcam to work, so going through the hassle of getting those drivers to behave or just not having a built-in webcam is a choice to make.

Probably your best bet for something similar in vein to MacOS would be any distro that ships with GNOME. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed all either ship explicitly with GNOME or have them as options within their live installers.

If you know which model and spec your Macbook is, I could give better compatibility insights. In short, the Broadcom chips used for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth in the 2014-2015 Macbooks used to be quite problematic for many Linux distros, but I do believe the in-tree bcm43xx driver in the kernel should handle them well enough nowadays. Depending on exact year and spec, your Macbook may come with an NVidia GPU, which will require additional post-installation steps to install the proprietary drivers on many distros. As it isn’t the primary display device on those models, there shouldn’t be too many issues in getting the cards to function and render offloading to work.

Based on OP’s edit, that looks correct. Unless OP checks the topology and can make the claim that drives from the main chipset are the slow ones, secondary chipset drives will tend to perform slower, and the ASMedia ASM1061 has several reports online of poor to trash performance compared to baseline.

Best bet if the full performance is necessary out of every drive would be finding a decent quality PCI-E SATA III riser card that doesn’t use a known flawed driver chip rather use the two ‘extra’ ports on the motherboard.

Originally when I started the move to Linux in 2015, I did it because Windows 10 was wholly incompatible with my ISP. I lived through dial-up, HEO satellite, HSPA, LTE, fixed wireless, and currently fiber. During the period with dealing with HEO satellite, every provider at the time in the US (WildBlue/Exede/Viasat, Hughesnet) had alright speeds at best paired with a very aggressive soft monthly data cap (10 GB, eventually 26GB in like 2018), that would revert the speed capabilities back to 32-96kbps. Upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10 was largely a mistake for many reasons, but one of them was the sheer frequency, size, and aggressive nature of how Windows 10 tried to download and apply updates automatically. Windows 10’s frequent auto updates would easily eat several gigabytes each month of the tiny data cap. The rest of the amount of idle networking Windows 10 did also didn’t help during throttled periods, eating up most of the bandwidth available from just one workstation. Knowing that Windows 10 wouldn’t be another Windows 8 and that Microsoft would go forward with 10, I decided to seriously look into alternatives.

Eleven years later, I have virtually no restrictions in hardware nor networking. Despite that, I still use Linux exclusively. Nowadays, there is little to no compromise in using a Linux-based system for many general tasks. Certain niches vary in usability on Linux, especially if the niche is cemented in certain proprietary software. Modern Linux-based systems (both distro and desktop environment) are just more polished than the experience to be had on Windows 10 or Windows 11. Many common frustrations when using Windows (device driver installation, printers, drawing tablets, HDR, system updates, software updates, system maintenance, lack of dark patterns, error message clarity, etc.) are things that a modern Linux system deals with a lot less, to a lesser extent, or just not at all. After spending many years learning both Windows and Linux, Linux systems are just more functional and easier to use.

Starting with confirmation of what others have said, yes you can use compose tools with Podman and Podman can hook directly with Docker Compose (the tool), but it really isn’t recommended. Compatibility with compose now is better than it used to be, but there are still edge cases. For a lot of projects that just pre-write a compose file that they expect to cover the general use case of their container, you’re best to take the compose file and write it out to Quadlet unit(s).

Other differences not mentioned can include:

• Podman alongside containers has optional pods, which let you wrap multiple containers together, sharing the same IP internally. Useful for having a service and their sidecar containers (e.g. Valkey, Postgres, Meilisearch, etc.) be bundled under the same IP address and simply reference each other as localhost, 127.0.0.1, or ::1. If you utilize pods for certain split-container applications, you may need to remap certain service ports as they can overlap and cause binding failures.
• Podman has multiple networking modes. If you use Podman at the system level (rootful) like Docker expects you to, you’re not really going to encounter any quirks with the default networking setup. Per-user Podman (rootless) defaults to using the Pasta backend for networking, which is still very highly performant, but is a bit clunky to configure (if ever actually necessary) and inter-pod communication can be difficult to get right. Alternatively, registering rootless pods with a bridge network makes inter-pod communication easy, but can cause problems if accurate source IPs are needed (e.g. upstream reverse proxies, accurate client IP logging, etc.).
• Because Podman is daemonless, there is also no persistent API socket loaded by default (an intentional security choice). For both rootful and rootless containers, you can enable this manually and mount it to containers that need it. For containers that expect docker.sock explicitly for API manipulation, your mount will need to reflect the name change of the podman.socket to what the container expects.
• Podman by default won’t shorthand container pulls from docker.io by default: a sin I see constantly done in so many compose files. When pulling a container from DockerHub, you need to put the docker.io/ prefix, just as you would but the appropriate prefix with Quay, Github, Gitlab, or any other distributor.
• Podman can optionally let you auto-update containers based on the release tag specified for the container.
• Because of Podman’s integration with SystemD, a lot of oddball integrations (external cron jobs, one-shot services, etc.) can be pulled together with extra SystemD units (services, timers, etc.).

Might take a little bit of effort to do a conversion if you’re locked into explicitly how Docker interacts with OCI containers, but over in the Podman camp you have two options.

• Cockpit with the Podman containers interface: a graphical web-based solution for managing podman containers and the rest of the system.
• Podman Quadlets: a config file-based way to manage Podman containers, volumes, pods, networks with custom SystemD units. Great if you want to version control your deployments.

Other than that, the more usable solutions I’ve tried of graphical Docker container management interfaces would be the ones in Unraid and Proxmox, though those solutions may not be suitable depending on your use case and have their own caveats to be aware of.

If Google kills AOSP, a lot more than just GrapheneOS will stop being able to exist lest some entity maintains a fork that diverges from Google’s path. Vendors that aren’t shipping in line with Play Services and the rest of the ecosystem as well as LineageOS and other custom ROM development teams will suffer as well.

This kind of decision would essentially kill adoption of Android in a good number of countries within a few years as well as be the end of Android adoption for anyone that cares about security and/or privacy. Yes, It would either kill or put a large burden upon GrapheneOS as a project, but that is also true for so many other projects in the ecosystem. If the developers shutter their AOSP usage due to upstream abandonment, the users will likely follow in the same pattern.